Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

The female prisoners should be under the care of a matron, with proper assistants. Where this is not the case, the female part of the prison is often a mere brothel for the turnkeys. Can anything be so repugnant to all ideas of reformation, as a male turnkey visiting a solitary female prisoner? Surely, women can take care of women as effectually as men can take care of men; or, at least, women can do so properly, assisted by men. This want of a matron is a very scandalous and immoral neglect in any prison system.

This is good sound sense; and it is jurisdictions and powers should be a pity that it is preceded by the usual clearly arranged. nonsense about "the tide of blasphemy and sedition." If Mr. Holford is an observer of tides and currents, whence comes it that he observes only those which set one way? Whence comes it that he says nothing of the tides of canting and hypocrisy, which are flowing with such rapidity?—of abject political baseness and sycophancy of the disposition so prevalent among Englishmen, to sell their conscience and their country to the Marquis of Londonderry for a living for the second son- or a silk gown for the nephew or for a frigate for my brother the captain? How comes our loyal carcerist to forget all these sorts of tides ?

The presence of female visitors, and instructors for the women, is so obviously advantageous and proper, that There is a great confusion, as the the offer of forming such an institution law now stands, in the government must be gladly and thankfully received of jails. The justices are empowered, by any body of magistrates. That by several statutes, to make subor- they should feel any jealousy of such dinate regulations for the government interference is too absurd a supposition of the jails; and the sheriff supersedes to be made or agreed upon. Such those regulations. Their respective interference may not effect all that but the present incentive being wanting, zealous people suppose it will effect; the labour will, I apprehend, be languid but, if it does any good, it had and desultory.' I shall not, on my part, better be. undertake to say that they will do as much work as will be done in those prisons in which work is the primary object; but, besides the encouragement of the portion of earnings laid up for them, they know that diligence is among the qualities that will recommend them to the mercy of the Crown, and that the want of it is, by the rules and regulations of the prison, an offence to be punished. The Governor of Bury gaol, who is a very intelligent man, must have spoken hastily, in his eagerness to support his own system, and did not, I conceive, give himself credit for as much power and authority in his prison as he really possesses. It is not to be wondered at, that the keepers of prisons should like the new system: there is less trouble in the care of a manufactory than in that of a gaol; but I am surprised to find that so much reliance is placed in argument on

Let

Irons should never be put upon prisoners before trial; after trial we cannot object to the humiliation and disgrace which irons and a parti-coloured prison dress occasion. them be a part of solitary confinement, and let the words "Solitary Confinement," in the sentence, imply permission to use them. The Judge then knows what he inflicts.

We object to the office of Prison Inspector, for reasons so very obvious, that it is scarcely necessary to enumerate them.

The prison inspector would, of course, have a good salary; that, in England, is never omitted. the declaration of some of these officers, that the prisoners are quieter where their It is equally matter of course, that he work is encouraged by allowing them to would be taken from among Treasury spend a portion of their earnings. It may retainers; and that he never would naturally be expected, that offenders will be least discontented, and consequently look at a prison. Every sort of attenleast turbulent, where their punishment tion should be paid to the religious is lightest, or where, to use Mr. Buxton's instruction of these unhappy people, own words, 'by making labour productive of comfort or convenience, you do much but the poor chaplain should be paid towards rendering it agreeable; but I a little better;-every possible duty must be permitted to doubt whether these is expected from him—and he has are the prisons of which men will live in most dread." (Holford, pp. 78-80.) one hundred per annum.

Whatever money is given to pri- | there is but one objection. The present soners, should be lodged with the duration of punishments was calculated governor for their benefit, to be applied for prisons conducted upon very difas the visiting magistrates point out — ferent principles;-and if the discipline no other donations should be allowed of prisons were rendered more strict, or accepted. we are not sure that the duration of If voluntary work before trial, or imprisonment would be practically compulsory work after trial, be the shortened; and the punishments would system of a prison, there should be a then be quite atrocious and disproportaskmaster; and it should be remem-tioned. There is a very great disposi bered, that the principal object is not profit.

Wardsmen, selected in each yard among the best of the prisoners, are very serviceable. If prisoners work, they should work in silence. At all times, the restrictions upon seeing friends should be very severe; and no food should be sent from friends.

tion, both in judges and magistrates, to increase the duration of imprisonment; and, if that be done, it will be dreadful cruelty to increase the bitterness as well as the time. We should think, for instance, six months' solitary imprisonment to be a punishment of dreadful severity; but we find, from the House of Commons' Report, that prisoners are Our general system then is that a sometimes committed by county magisprison should be a place of real punish-trates for two years of solitary conment; but of known, enacted, measur-finement. And so it may be doubted, able, and measured punishment. A whether it is not better to wrap up the prisoner (not for assault, or refusing rod in flannel, and make it a plaything, to pay parish dues, but a bad felonious prisoner) should pass a part of his three months in complete darkness; the rest in complete solitude, perhaps in complete idleness (for solitary idleness leads to repentance, idleness in company to vice). He should be exempted from cold, be kept perfectly clean, have sufficient food to prevent hunger or illness, wear the prison dress and moderate irons, have no communica- In this age of charity and of prison tion with anybody but the officers improvement, there is one aid to priof the prison and the magistrates, and soners which appears to be wholly remain otherwise in the most perfect overlooked; and that is, the means of solitude. We strongly suspect this regulating their defence, and providing is the way in which a bad man is to them witnesses for their trial. A man be made afraid of prisons; nor do we is tried for murder, or for housebreakthink that he would be less inclineding, or robbery, without a single shilto receive moral and religious instruc-ling in his pocket. The nonsensical tion, than any one of seven or eight and capricious institutions of the Engcarpenters in jail, working at a com-lish law prevent him from engaging mon bench, receiving a part of their counsel to speak in his defence, if he earnings, and allowed to purchase with had the wealth of Croesus; but he has them the delicacies of the season. If no money to employ even an attorney, this system be not resorted to, the next or to procure a single witness, or to best system is severe work, ordinary take out a subpœna. The Judge, diet, no indulgences, and as much se- we are told, is his counsel,-this is clusion and solitude as are compatible sufficiently absurd; but it is not prewith work;-always remarking, that tended that the Judge is his witness. perfect sanity of mind and body are to He solemnly declares that he has three be preserved. or four witnesses who could give a House of Commons' Report, 355.

as it really now is, than to show how it may be wielded with effectual severity. For the pupil, instead of giving one or two stripes, will whip his patient to death. But if this abuse were guarded against, the real way to improve would be, now we have made prisons healthy and airy, to make them odious and austere - - engines of punishment, and objects of terror.

To this system of severity in jails

completely different colour to the transaction; but they are sixty or seventy miles distant, working for their daily bread, and have no money for such a journey, nor for the expense of a resi dence of some days in an Assize Town. They do not know even the time of the Assize, nor the modes of tendering their When evidence if they could come. everything is so well marshalled against him on the opposite side, it would be singular if an innocent man, with such an absence of all means of defending himself, should not occasionally be hanged or transported; and accordingly we believe that such things have happened. Let any man, immediately previous to the Assizes, visit the prisoners for trial, and see the many wretches who are to answer to the most serious accusations, without one penny to defend themselves. If it appeared probable, upon inquiry, that these poor creatures had important evidence which they could not bring into Court for want of money, would it not be a wise application of compassionate funds to give them this fair chance of establishing their innocence? It seems to us no bad finale of the pious labours of those who guard the poor from illtreatment during their imprisonment, to take care that they are not unjustly hanged at the expiration of the term.

From the Clonmel Advertiser it pears, that John Brien, alias Captain Wheeler, was found guilty of murder at the late assizes for the county of Waterford. Previous to his execution he made the following confession: --

MAN TRAPS AND SPRING

GUNS. (E. REVIEW, 1821.) Reports of Cases argued and determined in the Court of King's Bench, in Hilary Term, 60th Geo. III. 1820. By Richard V. Barnewall, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq. Barrister-at-Law, and Edward H. Alderson, of the Inner Temple, Esq. Barrister-atLaw. Vol. III. Part II. London, 1820. Most of our readers will remember, that we very lately published an article upon the use of Steel Traps and Spring Guns; and, in the course of discussion, had occasion to animadvert upon the Report of Mr. Justice Best's judgment, in the case of Ilott and Wilkes, as reported in Chetwynd's Edition of Burn's Justice, published in the spring of the present year. In the Morning Chronicle, of the 4th of June, 1821, Mr. Justice Best is reported to have made the following observations in the King's Bench:

"Mr. Justice Best said, Mr. Chetwynd's book having been mentioned by my Learned must take this oppor Brother Bayley, tunity, not without some pain, of adverting to what I am reported in his work to have said in the case of Ilott v. Wilkes, and of correcting a most gross misrepresentation. I am reported to have concurred with the other Judges, and to have delivered my judgment at considerable length, and then to have said, 'This case has been discussed at the Bar, as if these engines were exclusively resorted to for the protection of ap-game; but I consider them as lawfully applicable to the protection of every species of property against unlawful trespassers.' This is not what I stated; but the part which I wish more particularly to deny, as ever having said, or even conceived, is this -'But if even they might not lawfully be used for the protection of game, I, for one, should be extremely glad to adopt such means, if they were found sufficient for that purpose.' I confess I am surprised that this learned person should suppose, from the note of any one, that any person who ever sat in a Court of Justice as a Judge could talk such wicked nonsense as I am made to talk; and I am surprised that he should venture to give the authority he does for what he has published; for I find, that the reference he gives in the Appendix to his book is 3 Barn. and Ald. 304., where there is a correct report of that case, and where it will be found that every word uttered by me is directly contrary to what I am supposed, by Mr. Chetwynd's

"I now again most solemnly aver, in the presence of that God by whom I will soon be judged, and who sees the secrets of my heart, that only three, viz. Morgan Brien, Patrick Brien, and my unfortunate self, committed the horrible crimes of murder and burning at Ballygarron, and that the four unfortunate men who have before suffered for them were not in the smallest degree accessary to them. I have been the cause for which they have innocently suffered death. I have contracted a debt of justice with them-and the only and least restitution I can make them, is thus publicly, solemnly, and with death before my eyes, to acquit their memory of any guilt in the crimes for which I shall deservedly suffer!!!" (Philanthropist, No. 6. 208.)

Pereunt et imputantur.

:

statement of the case, to have said. I the New Times of the same date, as don't trouble the Court with reading the follows: whole of what I did say on that occasion, but I will just say that I said-'My Brother Bayley has illustrated this case by the question which he asked, namely, Can you indict a man for putting spring guns in his enclosed field? I think the question put by Lord Chief Justice Gibbs, in the case of Dean v. Clayton, in the Common Pleas, a still better illustration, viz. Can you justify entering into enclosed lands to take away guns so set? If both these questions must be answered in the negative, it cannot be unlawful to set spring guns in an enclosed field at a distance from any road, giving such notice that they are set as to render it in the highest degree probable that all persons in the neighbourhood must know that they are so set. Humanity quires that the fullest notice possible should be given; and the law of England will not sanction what is inconsistent with humanity. A popular work has quoted this Report from Mr. Chetwynd's Work, but has omitted this important line (which omission reminds one of the progress of a thing, the name of which one does not choose to mention), that I had concurred in what had fallen from the other Judges;' and omitting that line, they state, that one had said, 'It is my opinion that with notice, or without notice, this might be done.' Now, concurring with the other Judges, it is impossible I should say that. It is right that this should be corrected; not that I'It follows, that a man may put his fellowentertain any angry feeling, for too much creatures to death for any infringement time has elapsed since then for any anger of his property, for picking the sloes and to remain on my mind; but all I claim, blackberries off his hedges; for breaking with respect to the observations made in a few dead sticks out of them by night or that work, severe as they are (and I, for one, by day, with resistance or without resistfeel that I should deserve no mercy if I ance, with warning or without warning.' should ever entertain such doctrines), is The Judges with whom Mr. Chetwynd that I may not be misrepresented. It is makes me concur in opinion, all gave their not necessary for me, in this place, to say, judgment on the ground of due notice being that no man entertains more horror of the given. I do not complain of the other obserdoctrine I am supposed to have laid down vations contained in this work; they would than I do; that the life of man is to be have been deserved by me had I ever uttreated lightly and indifferently, in com- tered such an opinion as the report of Mr. parison with the preservation of game, and Chetwynd has stated me to have delivered. the amusement of sporting; that the laws The whole of what I said will be found of humanity are to be violated for the sake to be utterly inconsistent with the statemerely of preserving the amusement of ment by those who will read the case in game. I am sure no man can justly im-Barnewall and Alderson.' I will only pute to me such wicked doctrines. It is trouble the Court with the passage which unnecessary for me to say, that I entertain will be found in the report of my judg no such sentiments; and therefore I hope I ment in '3 Barnewall and Alderson, 319.:' shall be excused, not on account of my own-It cannot be unlawful to set spring guns feelings, but as far as the public are interested in the character of a Judge, in saying, that no person should blame a Judge for what has been unjustly put into his mouth." His Lordship's speech is reported in

"Mr. Justice Best said, 'My Brother Bayley has quoted Mr. Chetwynd's edition of Burn: I am surprised that the learned author of that work should have made me talk such mischievous nonsense, as he has given to the public in a report of my judg ment in the case of Ilott and Wilkes. I am still more surprised, that he should have suffered this judgment to remain uncorrected, after he had seen a true report of the case in Barnewall and Alderson, to which report he has referred in his Appendix.' Mr. Chetwynd's report has the following passage:- Mr. Justice Best concurred with the other Judges.' His Lordship concluded as follows:-This case has been re-discussed at the Bar, as if these engines were exclusively resorted to for the protection of game; but I considered them as lawfully applicable to the protection of every species of property against unlawful trespassers. But if even they might not lawfully be used for the protection of game, I, for one, should be extremely glad to adopt such measures, if they were found sufficient for that purpose.'

"A popular periodical work contains the passage just cited, with the omission of the words concurred with the other Judges.' Of this omission I have reason to complain, because, if it had been inserted, the writer of the article could not have said,

in an enclosed field, at a distance from any road, giving such notice that they are set, as to render it in the highest degree probable that all persons in the neighbourhood must know that they are so set. Hu

We subjoin the report of Messrs. Barnewall and Alderson, here alluded to, and allowed by Mr. Justice Best to

be correct.

manity required that the fullest notice | to be protected, at a distance from the possible should be given; and the law of residence of the owner, in the night, and England will not sanction what is incon- in the absence of his servants? It has sistent with humanity.' I have taken the been said, that the law has provided refirst opportunity of saying this, because I medies for any injuries to such things by think it of importance to the public that action. But the offender must be detected such a misrepresentation of the opinion of before he can be subjected to an action; one of the Judges should not be circulated and the expense of continual watching for without some notice." this purpose would often exceed the value of the property to be protected. If we look at the subject in this point of view, we vented from paying their rents by the plunmay find, amongst poortenants, who are preder of their crops, men who are more objects Best, J. The act of the plaintiff could of our compassion than the wanton tresonly occasion mere nominal damage to the passer, who brings on himself the injury wood of the defendant. The injury that which he suffers. If an owner of a close the plaintiff's trespass has brought upon cannot set spring guns, he cannot put glass himself is extremely severe. In such a case, bottles or spikes on the top of a wall, or one cannot, without pain, decide against even have a savage dog, to prevent persons the action. But we must not allow our from entering his yard. It has been said, feelings to induce us to lose sight of the in argument, that you may see the glass principles which are essential to the rights bottles or spikes; and it is admitted, that of property. The prevention of intrusión if the exact spot where these guns are upon property is one of these rights; and set was pointed out to the trespasser, every proprietor is allowed to use the force he could not maintain any action for the that is absolutely necessary to vindicate it. injury he received from one of them. As If he uses more force than is absolutely to seeing the glass bottles or spikes, that necessary, he renders himself responsible must depend on the circumstance whether for all the consequences of the excess. it be light or dark at the time of the tresThus, if a man comes on my land, I cannot pass. But what difference does it make, lay hands on him to remove him, until I whether the trespasser be told the gun is have desired him to go off. If he will not set in such a spot, or that there are guns depart on request, I cannot proceed im- in different parts of such a field, if he has mediately to beat him, but must endeavour no right to go on any part of that field? to push him off. If he is too powerful for It is absurd to say you may set the guns, me, I cannot use a dangerous weapon, but provided you tell the trespasser exactly must first call in aid other assistance. I where they are set, because then the setam speaking of out-door property, and ting them could answer no purpose. My of cases in which no felony is to be brother Bayley has illustrated this case, apprehended. It is evident also, that by the question which he asked, namely, this doctrine is only applicable to tres- Can you indict a man for putting spring passes committed in the presence of the guns in his enclosed field? I think the owner of the property trespassed on. When question put by Lord C. J. Gibbs, in the the owner and the servants are ab- case in the Common Pleas, a still better sent at the time of the trespass, it can illustration, viz. Can you justify entering only be repelled by the terror of spring into enclosed lands, to take away guns so guns, or other instruments of the same set ? If both these questions must be ankind. There is, in such cases, no possi-swered in the negative, it cannot be unbility of proportioning the resisting force to the obstinacy and violence of the trespasser, as the owner of the close may and is required to do where he is present. There is no distinction between the mode of defence of one species of out-door property and another (except in cases where the taking or breaking into the property amounts to felony). If the owner of woods cannot set spring guns in his woods, the owner of an orchard, or of a field with potatoes or turnips or any other crop usually the object of plunder, cannot set them in such field. How, then, are these kinds of property

lawful to set spring guns in an enclosed field, at a distance from any road, giving such notice that they are set, as to render it in the highest degree probable that all persons in the neighbourhood must know that they are so set. Humanity requires that the fullest notice possible should be given; and the law of England will not sanction what is inconsistent with humanity. It has been said in argument, that it is a principle of law, that you cannot do indirectly what you are not permitted to do directly. This principle is not applicable to the case. You cannot shoot a

« AnteriorContinua »